At least for now, this is my final post at Virtually Blind. It’s been a blast, but personal and professional obligations have taken center stage, and at the moment, I just do not have time to keep posting at the rate VB’s readers have come to expect. The site will remain online as a research resource, but there will be no new content for the foreseeable future. I will continue writing on issues related to virtual law in mainstream and industry publications, and plan to stay very active in this field.

I cannot overstate my appreciation for Virtually Blind’s readers, commenters, and contributing writers. Your regular visits over the last two years kept me posting, and your witty, insightful comments added immeasurably to the site. I will genuinely miss interacting with all of you here, and will look forward to staying in touch with you in other forums.

Interesting twist in the SLART trademark lawsuit (viaMassively). It turns out that the avatar ‘Victor Vezina,’ who Richard Minsky named as a defendant (along with Linden Lab) is the avatar of technology writer Victor Keegan, who writes for guardian.co.uk. Keegan says he “was a pawn caught in the crossfire between Linden [...] and Minsky.”

Last year VB covered a video by Second Life’s ‘Bernard Drax’ of a virtual Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. The video of the installation is up for an “Every Human Has Rights” media award. Congratulations!

There’s a solid breakdown of the Blizzard v. MDY case (.pdf) from the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. The interesting thing about this article is that it sets out a potential argument for appeal based on what the Journal sees as the trial court’s somewhat vague restatement of a key test. Definitely worth a click if you’ve been following the case.

This one’s not directly related to virtual law, but I wanted to highlight Geri Kahn’s new California Immigration Lawyer Blog, because Geri is current VP of Finance of the SL Bar Association, and active in virtual worlds.

One more blog note: Sean Kane, one of my co-chairs of the Virtual Worlds and Multiuser Online Games committee of the ABA’s Section of Science & Technology Law, is periodically posting to a blog at his new site, Virtual Judgment.

While mainstream organizations have taken steps to enforce trademarks in Second Life before, in this case, the recipient of the enforcement action apparently made the note received from Linden Lab public. Here’s the purported text of that notice:

Subject: Re: Notification of Trademark Infringement Received by Linden Lab

We’re writing to let you know about changes made to your profile in Second Life. Miss Universe L.P, LLLP — the owner of the Miss Universe trademark — has complained about use of the Miss Universe trademark in the Second Life environment.

Linden Lab respects the rights of both Second Life residents and trademark owners. Accordingly, Linden Lab has removed uses of “Miss Universe” and “Miss SL Universe” from your Second Life profile. Please do not continue to use “Miss Universe” or “Miss SL Universe” in the Second Life environment.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Linden Lab

Assuming this is all accurate, it sheds some light the procedures and steps a trademark holder might wish to request that Linden Lab take in similar situations. Notably, the communication only refers to alteration to profile text, and not removal of in-world items. Verbiage in profiles is the low-hanging fruit of trademark enforcement in virtual worlds, of course, so I wonder if The Miss Universe Organization targeted only the profile text, or if Linden Lab limited their enforcement to that area. In any case, it’s interesting to see an example of what Linden Lab will currently do when contacted by mainstream brands (or their attorneys) claiming trademark infringement.

About Virtually Blind

From early 2007 to late 2008, Virtually Blind covered legal news, issues, and events that impact virtual worlds, video games, and the 3D internet. The site is no longer updated, though it remains online as a research resource.

Posts and comments on VB were and are not offered as legal advice, and are not confidential attorney-client communication. Posts and comments reflect only the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of VB's editor, other contributors, sponsors, or any author's employer.